4.5 Article

Evidence that the cells responsible for marrow fibrosis in a rat model for hyperparathyroidism are preosteoblasts

Journal

ENDOCRINOLOGY
Volume 146, Issue 9, Pages 4074-4081

Publisher

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/en.2005-0480

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIAMS NIH HHS [AR48833] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We examined proliferation of cells associated with PTH-induced peritrabecular bone marrow fibrosis in rats as well as the fate of those cells after withdrawal of PTH. Time-course studies established that severe fibrosis was present 7 d after initiation of a continuous sc PTH infusion (40 mu g/kg-d). To ascertain cell proliferation, rats were coinfused for 1 wk with PTH (treated) or vehicle (control) and [H-3] thymidine (1.5 mCi/ rat). Groups of control and treated rats were killed immediately (d 0) and 1 wk (d 7) later. Few osteoblasts (Obs) and osteocytes in treated and control groups were radiolabeled on d 0. Peritrabecular cells expressing a fibroblastic (Fb) phenotype and surrounded by an extracellular matrix were not present in controls on either d 0 or d 7. Multiple cell layers of Fbs lined most (70%) of the bone surface on d 0 in treated rats and nearly all (85%) of the Fbs were radiolabeled. Fbs had entirely disappeared from bone surfaces on d 7. Eighty-five percent of the Obs on and 73% of the osteocytes within the active remodeling sites were radiolabeled. Immunohistochemistry revealed that Fbs induced by PTH treatment produced osteocalcin, osteonectin, and core binding factor-alpha 1. These data provide compelling evidence that Fbs recruited to bone surfaces in response to a continuous PTH infusion undergo extensive proliferation, express osteoblast-specific proteins, and produce an extracellular matrix that is similar to osteoid. After restoration of normal PTH levels, Fbs differentiated to Obs, providing further evidence that Fbs are preosteoblasts.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available